Ripping off ESPN -> Trout vs Cabrera MVP Topic

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Posted by dahsdebater on 9/28/2012 7:10:00 PM (view original):
I haven't watched that large a proportion of Trout's or Cabrera's games this year, so to try to do it without considering some statistics would just be ridiculous.  This has always been the case, quite literally for as long as the award has existed.  You can't possibly answer it objectively based on what you see on the field when at best what most people saw in the field was maybe 20% of the guy's season.  Unless you're following one of their teams, but how many people followed both the Cardinals AND Tigers on an everyday basis this season?
It still would be tough if you followed both the Cardinals and the Tigers, as Trout plays for the Angels ...
10/1/2012 2:28 PM
why does WAR rate Mike Trout's season as the 24th greatest season by a hitter of all time on ?
10/1/2012 4:11 PM
Posted by masterdebate on 10/1/2012 4:11:00 PM (view original):
why does WAR rate Mike Trout's season as the 24th greatest season by a hitter of all time on ?
1. Trout has been an excellent hitter. He leads the AL in OPS+.
2. Batting runs in WAR does not include intentional walks. Trout has only four this year. All factors in, he has 51 batting runs.
3. He rates as an outstanding baserunner and fielder. The first should be no surprise. And while one can debate endlessly how well he has played defense, there is no doubt he is superb with the glove. Trout has produced 10 baserunning runs, and  and 22 fielding runs according to WAR. He also has one run on avoiding grounding into double plays.
4. He plays a position that docks him only a single run in the position adjustment. A first baseman or left fielder would get hit much harder.
5. He plays in the AL, which has historically high values for replacement runs added, given the league quality factor. Trout gets 21 runs here.

51+10+1+22-1+21=104 runs. The runs to wins conversion, usually about 10 runs to a win, gives him 10.5 WAR. The numbers add up. If you disagree with them, that's fine.

(Made an edit here after seeing I misread the numbers.)

10/2/2012 12:57 AM (edited)
Even if you don't like WAR, it's pretty simple to see that Trout has been the best player in the AL this year. He's almost as valuable as Cabrera with the bat and destroys him in the field and on the bases.
10/1/2012 7:45 PM
Explain "almost as valuable".
10/1/2012 7:51 PM
i'm 50/50 on the mvp thing. i'm just surprised that a guy with an obp lower than ted williams' batting average in 41 would rate higher than teddy ballgame as an example. i guess i'm behind on the times in defensive evalutions, i didn't think they carried as much weight as they apparently do. thanks for the explanation.
10/1/2012 9:54 PM
Wow.  Trout was so valuable for the Angels that they can safely set up golf dates starting Thursday.
10/2/2012 8:11 AM

I guess badluck couldn't explain "almost as valuable". 

10/2/2012 9:03 AM
Posted by raucous on 10/2/2012 8:11:00 AM (view original):
Wow.  Trout was so valuable for the Angels that they can safely set up golf dates starting Thursday.
The Angels have a better record than the Tigers.  It's not like Trout is a good player on a bad team.
10/2/2012 9:14 AM
I guess some of it depends on your goals when the season starts.    If a teams goal is "make playoffs", a failure to "make playoffs" leaves one without a MVP candidate, IMO.    If the goal is "be competitive", a team that misses the playoffs could have MVP candidates.

Pretty sure the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, California in the Western United States of America on the North American continent were considered early season favorites for a playoff run.    Is it Trout's fault they failed?  I don't think so.   Is he so much better than the next guy in the AL that he overpowers him?  I don't think so.
10/2/2012 9:36 AM
You can't just boil it down to "make or don't make playoffs".

The Angels played in a much tougher division.  They had to play 38 games against Texas and Oakland.  The Tigers only played 17 games against those two teams.  Overall, the Angels (by my count) have played 26 more games against teams that won 90 games this season than did Detroit.  One can make a pretty good argument that the Angels 89 wins are more impressive than Detroit's 87 wins because they played the tougher schedule from April-September.

Then you factor in Trout's 10.7 WAR as compared to Cabrera's 6.8 WAR, and also consider that Trout did not come up to the majors until late April so he did that in 20 fewer games, that's pretty impressive.

Also, the Angels have had the best record in the American League since Trout joined the team.  The best player on the best team in the AL since April 28.  That's a very good argument for MVP.
10/2/2012 10:10 AM
I didn't. 

But one team will play on and one team will not.  Both were expected to.    Perhaps the Angels do if they call Trout up earlier.  But they didn't.  Perhaps Trout would have gone 0-80 in those extra 20 games.   I don't really care what MIGHT have happened.   I know what did happen.

Nonetheless, an argument can be made for Trout.   For me, the tie-breaker is "Would the Angels have missed the playoff without Trout?"  The answer is "They missed them with Trout."   Can the same be said for Detroit/Cabrera?
10/2/2012 10:24 AM
How does all of that mesh with the whole "which guy would you rather have had on your team this year" thing?  Why does that change based on how the rest of the team perform?
10/2/2012 10:31 AM
Truthfully, I'd have rather had MC at 1B/DH than Trout in the OF. 

But no one is having that discussion.  We're talking about which player is deemed "most valuable".     Angels play 162 with or without Trout, right?
10/2/2012 10:46 AM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5...42 Next ▸
Ripping off ESPN -> Trout vs Cabrera MVP Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2018, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.